Nordic Social Work Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rnsw20

Client documents in social work with adults as

research data: scoping review of opportunities and
challenges

Tuija Kuorikoski

To cite this article: Tuija Kuorikoski (05 Oct 2022): Client documents in social work with adults
as research data: scoping review of opportunities and challenges, Nordic Social Work Research,
DOI: 10.1080/2156857X.2022.2130406

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2022.2130406

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 05 Oct 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1283

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rnsw20
NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2022.2130406

Client documents in social work with adults as research data:

scoping review of opportunities and challenges
Tuija Kuorikoski
Social Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Kokkola university Concortium Chydenius, Kokkola, Finland

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Documentation is an integral part of social work. It is a tool in client work, Social work with adults;
and it also has an accountability perspective. Documentation helps the recording; case files; case
practitioners to evaluate their own work and makes it possible to assess notes; documentation
the impact of work and develop practices. The use of client documents for
research purposes has been identified as an option, but it is still quite rare.
Moreover, little attention has been paid to social work with adults in this
context. The development of electronic information systems (EIS), includ­
ing structured forms, presents new research opportunities. Through doc­
umentation, it is possible to make tacit information visible and obtain
evidence, for example, about the effects of adult social work. The aim of
this review is to examine the use of adult social work client documents in
research: what kinds of documents are used as data, what are the aims
and methods of the studies, and especially what opportunities and chal­
lenges are associated with the client documents as research data? The
review finds that the methods and research topics are diverse. It indicates
that documentation has a low status in adult social work, and recording
practices are inadequate; this has implications for the client’s position and
involvement, the development and monitoring of social work, and the
usability of such documents for research purposes. These findings are
a matter of serious concern, and they are linked to the demanding work­
ing conditions and the recording cultures that prevail in organizations, as
well as problems with information systems.

Introduction
Documentation in social work has various functions. It often has a negative image, and it is
perceived as a secondary and time-consuming task (Shaw et al. 2009; Gillingham 2011;
McDonald et al. 2015; Lauri 2016; Lillis 2017). However, documentation and social work are closely
intertwined. Documents are also recognized as valuable data and tools for knowledge formation
(Kääriäinen 2003; Alexanderson et al. 2009), and their importance has only increased with the
development of EIS. Still, there are challenges. From the practitioner’s point of view, the EIS does
not always serve practical work in the best possible way (Ylönen 2022; Gillingham 2021).
This scoping review centres on the use of adult social work documentation for research purposes
as there appears to be limited research combining these topics. It is easier to find research on
childcare and families that uses client documents as data (e.g. Baginsky, Manthorpe, and Moriarty
2020; Laird et al. 2017; Hoyle et al. 2019); research concerning social work with the elderly is also
available (e.g. Chester et al. 2021; Storey and Perka 2018). One reason for this may be the diversity of
social work with adults (Thompson 2002, 288). Social work with adults is a large and indeterminate

CONTACT Tuija Kuorikoski tuija.h.kuorikoski@jyu.fi

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 T. KUORIKOSKI

field. In this study, adult social work is approached from a Finnish context. This partly delimits the
data, and serves as a background for my further document study of the effects of adult social work in
Finland. However, this does not exclude an international connection and exploitation of the
findings, as the themes of adult social work and documentation are similar, and the review includes
international research.
The aim of this scoping review is to generate information about the opportunities and challenges
of documentation related to the research use of adult social work client documents. In addition, it
maps the data and methods used as well as the topics studied. The review also contributes
suggestions for improvement from the perspective of documentation. In what follows, I describe
the key concepts and the scoping review method, and its application in this article according to the
five stages of Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework. The findings section presents an overview of
the data and its features, organized around the research questions. This is followed by a discussion
and conclusion.

Key concepts
Documentation in social work
According to Askeland and Payne (1999), terms related to documentation internationally are ‘case
records’, ‘notes’ or ‘files’, and ‘case recording’. For clarity, in this article these terms are subsumed
under the terms ‘documents’ and ‘documentation’. Documentation can include written texts, video
and audio recordings, photographs and drawings (Denscombe 2010). The functions and practices
of documentation have altered over the years. It is still used for practice development, theory-
building, research and teaching, as it was in the early 20th century (Reamer 2005). It also retains
planning and monitoring functions (Prior 2003; Laaksonen et al. 2011; Lillis 2017). Reamer (2005)
notes that risk management and the protection of clients, practitioners and employers is part of
documentation. Documentation is regulated by law. It should be accurate, sufficient and timely. It
should include only relevant information, and clients’ privacy should be protected (2015/254).
Documentation is often considered time-consuming, boring, and ‘just’ an administrative task. It
is believed to limit the time available for face-to-face work with clients, which is perceived as ‘real
social work’ (Shaw et al. 2009; Gillingham 2011; McDonald et al. 2015; Lauri 2016; Lillis 2017).
Standardized templates are considered inflexible, focusing on technical issues and decisions instead
of on the content of conversations (Jacobsson and Martinell Barfoed 2019). The use of measure­
ment in social work is criticized because it is associated with managerialism and the business world;
it is considered to focus on outcomes rather than values (Vojak 2009; Bradt et al. 2011; Fook 2016;
Phillips 2019). The complexity of information systems (IS) is also perceived as a challenge in the
field (Shaw et al. 2009). According to Björngren Cuadra (2019), problems with IS stem from a lack
of knowledge about frontline social work among IS designers, as well as the diversity of needs
depending on the point of view taken.
Documentation is also recognized as a window onto the previous sociopolitical situations (Prior
2007; Vierula 2017). Systematicity, planning, goals and holistic assessments reduce ‘drift’, which is
often seen as a problem (Thompson 2002). Documentation makes it possible to implement
evidence- and knowledge-based ways of working (Alexanderson 2006). It provides a tool with
which to assess goals and agree next steps with the client. Proper documentation is also important
for accountability to clients (Lillis 2017). Documents make the process visible to all parties,
including policymakers (Laaksonen et al. 2011). It is known that turnover in social work is high
(Yliruka et al. 2020). Updated and accurate documentation helps with continuity in changing
situations (Reamer 2005; Lillis 2017). Documentation may also develop one’s professional identity
and enables reflection (McDonald et al. 2015). Integrating and securing access to services requires
proper documentation. Multiprofessional use of the plans and assessments contained in EIS is
central, especially when clients have multiple illnesses and problems (Hujala and Lammintakanen
 NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 3

2018). Cooperation and the pooling of resources also has economic implications (e.g. Murray,
Rodriguez, and Lewis 2020; Cheng and Catallo 2020).
The importance of client documents as a source from which to measure outcomes in evaluation
research has grown over the years (e.g. Carrilio 2005, 2008). This is connected to development
requirements in data management and recording practices, and increases the demands for struc­
tured recording. These needs have also been taken into account in Finland. There is, for example, an
effectiveness evaluation tool called ‘KEY’ which is integrated into the client database system. It is
used in services for people of working age. This tool is based on realistic evaluation, and it takes
advantage of single case design and ICT (Kivipelto et al. 2015). Blom and Morén (2007, 2015) are
also interested in the effects of social work and the mechanisms behind it, as well as the use of client
documents in research. They have developed CAIMeR theory; a theory based on critical realism
(Blom and Morén 2015). This theory takes mechanisms and contexts into account, and asks how
and why certain outcomes occur in a particular context. This type of research, and the structured
recording that enables it, is one way to highlight the effectiveness of social work that is perceived as
difficult to achieve.
Until recently, the secondary use of client documents as a primary source in qualitative research
was not particularly widespread. In the late 1990s, documentary research was alien to social work
research (McCulloch 2004). Nevertheless, documentary research has a long history in sociology.
Documentary investigation was the main research tool of classical sociologists such as Marx and
Weber; it was later also used by social scientists such as Foucault and Bourdieu (Coffey 2014; Scott
1990). Documents are often perceived as supplementary data, giving background information and
verifying other data sources (Prior 2007; Bowen 2009). The reliability of the data is considered
a challenge: client documents have been described as selective, partial, and based on practitioners’
interpretations of events (Floersch 2000). It must also be borne in mind that client documents are
written for purposes other than research (Denscombe 2010).

Social work with adults

Any definition of adult social work faces dilemmas in relation to both the content and the
terminology. Internet searches reveal that various combinations of terms are used. ‘Adult social
care’ is mainly used on British webpages. The term ‘safeguarding’ also emerges in the context
of social work with adults in the UK. In Finland, Finnish terms are used meaning ‘social work
with adults’, ‘social services for adults’ and ‘services for people of working age’, although
a direct Finnish translation of the English term ‘adult social work’ is commonly used. In the
literature, the term ‘social work with adults’ is often used (e.g. Adams, Dominelli, and Payne
2002).
Thompson (2002, 288) notes the diversity of social work with adults but finds some common
themes, such as the ‘importance of seeking to empower people, to support them constructively in
their efforts to retain as much control as possible over their lives, to remain as independent and
autonomous as possible, and to remove or avoid barriers to enjoying a quality of life free from
distress, disadvantage and oppression’. It is often stated that the nature of adult social work is
unclear, and that it is less valued than child protection, which is often prioritized and seen as more
complex. (ibid., Thompson 2002). Nonetheless, there is a strong interconnection between adult
social work and child protection (e.g. Lymbery and Postle 2010).
Activation has become a key policy focus in the 21st century, with impacts on adult social work
practice and clients (van Berkel et al. 2012; Hansen and Natland 2017). There is concern about
clients who no longer have access to the labour market, raising the question of whether work with
this group will become a secondary task in adult social work (Liukko 2006). Personalization –
person-centred planning for individual needs and support, and individual payments in the form of
personal budgets – has also become a central issue for those who are eligible for services (e.g.
Lymbery 2012; Malbon, Carey, and Meltzer 2019).
4 T. KUORIKOSKI

In Finland, services are grouped according to a life cycle model: services for families with
children, services for adults 18–64 years, and services for older people over 65 years (Karjalainen,
Metteri, and Strömberg-Jakka 2019). This distinguishes Finland from many other countries,
because older people are not primarily clients of adult social work (services for adults). Adult social
work in Finland is located in municipal offices (Juhila 2008). It has strong link to social assistance
(Karjalainen 2017), also called ‘income support’. Common issues that call for adult social work
intervention are unemployment and livelihood problems, health issues, substance use, housing
problems, criminal behaviour and family crises; often, these issues overlap (Juhila 2008; Karjalainen
2017). It is worth mentioning that older people or care leavers may also be clients of adult social
work if the financial support is placed in connection with the adult social work services.

Methods
This article uses the scoping review method proposed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). Scoping
reviews can be undertaken to examine the extent, range and nature of a particular research activity
(Arksey and O’Malley 2005). A scoping review does not necessarily describe previous research
findings in detail. It rarely answers specific questions or assesses the quality of the studies reviewed.
However, scoping is applicable when the field of interest is complex and difficult to grasp, and when
reviews on the topic are not yet available. Scoping reviews are appropriate to inform practice,
programmes and policy, and to provide directions for future research (Colquhoun et al. 2014).
A scoping review is suitable for the topic of research on adult social work due to the topic’s
complexity. According to previous research, there is a need for documentation-related improve­
ments at many levels, and a scoping review may provide insight into this too.
The scoping study process is not linear, and it requires a reflexive approach, repeating each step
to ensure that the literature is covered comprehensively. During the preparation of this article,
I followed the five stages of Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework: 1) identifying the research
question; 2) identifying relevant studies; 3) making the study selection; 4) charting the data; 5)
collating, summarizing and reporting the results.
By reading previous studies I first formulated and identified my research questions and defini­
tions of my key concepts (‘document’, ‘documentation’ and ‘adult social work’). I thoroughly
examined these questions concepts from the perspective of current practices and changes in social
work, such as the evaluation of effectiveness, EIS, and functions and development of documents and
documentation. As a result, I formulated the research questions as follows: what kinds of documents
are used as data in research? What are the research aims and methods? What are the opportunities
and challenges associated with documents, documentation and their use as research data?
I then started to identify and select relevant studies by conducting preliminary searches. The
search strategy was piloted in autumn 2020, and the final searches were conducted systematically in
electronic databases (Web of Science, Social Services Abstracts, Scopus and Sociological Abstracts)
over a three-month period from January to March 2021. I tested different combinations of ‘adult’,
‘adult social work’, ‘social work/care/service’, ‘documentation’ and ‘case file(s)/note(s)/record(s)’.
The use of ‘adult’ constrained the results excessively, and searches with ‘documentation’ yielded
ineligible hits. The terms found to be most suitable were ‘case file(s)/note(s)/record(s)’.
Specific keywords used in the search were ‘social work OR social service OR social care AND
recording OR records OR case file OR case note’, adapted to the search tools for each database and
using the ‘anywhere except full text’ function. The criteria for inclusion were as follows: the topic
included social work with adults (as understood in Finland and defined above); social services client
documentation was used as data; the research was published in English in a peer-reviewed journal
between January 2010 and March 2021. The period 2010–2021 was chosen because EIS have
become more common during that time, and because of this the data has been easier to obtain
for research purposes. It should be noted that in some of the selected studies, the age criteria (under
65 years or over 18 years) was only partially met. In these cases, there was flexibility in the age
 NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 5

Criteria for exclusion: RECORDS INDENTIFIED BY Criteria for exclusion:

SEARCHING DATABASES (Web of -Discussed elderly
-Did not understand social
science, Social Services Abstracts, Scopus and people or families and
work with adults in the way Sociological Abstracts)
outlined in this article parenting from child
(N=2076) protection perspective
-Healthcare (e.g. therapy
or rehabilitation) -Documentation
perspective FULL-TEXT ARTICLES TO BE concerned medical
ASSESSED FOR ELIGIBILITY records
-Data turned out to be
other than social work (49 articles, of which 14 duplicates were -Did not understand
client documents (e.g. removed at this stage) social work with adults
related to third sector or in the way outlined in
(N=35) this article
non-municipal social work)
-Journal from a field
FINAL SELECTION OF SOURCES
other than social work
(N=13)

Figure 1. Study selection.

criteria if the topic suited the Finnish context, which was also one of the criteria. The criteria for
exclusion were as follows: the definition of adult social work did not correspond to the context
outlined for this article; the research discussed elderly people or families from child protection or
parenting perspectives; the journal was in a field of health care; medical records were used as data;
the language of publication was not English.
A total of 2076 records were identified through database searches. The decision to include or
exclude was made by reading the titles and abstracts. If it was unclear whether my criteria (usually
concerning the data or target group) were met, I read the paper’s methodology section. Despite the
large number of hits, only 49 met my inclusion criteria at the first round. At this stage, 14 duplicates
were removed, leaving 35 articles. I then conducted a full-text review and closer examination of the
data to verify the eligibility of the 35 articles. I excluded several articles at this point because they
turned out to be related to healthcare or to have been produced by third-sector actors; adult social
work did appear in these articles, but it was not understood in the way outlined above, or else the
documents used had not been produced in a social work context. Ultimately, after careful reading,
13 articles were included (Figure 1).
The next step, data-charting, extracted the information (Table 1). Data-charting identifies
general information about each study as well as specific information, such as the type of interven­
tion, the outcome measures employed, and the study design (Arksey and O’Malley 2005). The final
stage was collating and summarizing. I organized the data and marked up all the references in the
articles to documents or documentation and noted their content. I then allocated all of the
references to opportunities and challenges. I also marked up the methods and data used, and the
aim of the research. These themes and their contents are summarized in my findings section below.

Findings
Data used in the studies
Terms describing the documents used as data appear in the data section in Table 1. The commonest
sources of data were individual-level client documents extracted from electronic IS maintained by
social welfare, or comparable documents collected within the framework of municipally funded
projects (Skogens 2011; Hamilton et al. 2015; Trainor 2015; Papadakaki et al. 2013; Fernqvist 2018;
Chotvijit, Thiarai, and Jarvis 2019; Choi and Chan 2020; Fontaine et al. 2020; Matscheck and Piuva
2020; Petersen and Parsell 2020). In one study only (Papadakaki et al. 2013), the documentation was
done by hand on paper. In some cases, the data was supplemented by interviews (Papadakaki et al.
6 T. KUORIKOSKI
Table 1. Data-charting.
Author, year of
publication, journal Aim of study
1 Fernqvist 2018 Asks how parents are
Critical and Radical portrayed in Swedish social
Social Work service records regarding
eviction risk, and how these
individuals are constructed
as clients with regard to
notions of financial propriety
2 Hamilton et al. 2015 Establishes the incidence of
Childcare in suicidal ideation and
Practice: Northern behaviour among young
Ireland Journal of people leaving state care in
Multi-Disciplinary one health and social care
Childcare Practice trust in Northern Ireland,
and explores the correlation
between this and client risk
factors
3 Scannapieco, Smith, Examines youth (ageing out of Records from Transition
and Blakeney- foster care) characteristics
Strong 2016 associated with better
Child & Adolescent outcomes, and programme
Social Work characteristics correlated
Journal with outcomes
4 Papadakaki et al. Explores social services
2013 department’s response to
Journal of Social intimate partner violence
Work cases in Greek university
hospital
5 Choi and Chan 2020 Investigates the motives of
Qualitative Social Chinese women who use
Work force in intimate
relationships, changes after
the use of force, and
interventions provided
6 Fyson 2015 Asks how the adult
British Journal of safeguarding database was
Social Work populated from case records
and how the resultant data
was utilized
7 Chotvijit, Thiarai, and Examines the flow and
Jarvis 2019 continuity of data, from
British Journal of referral through the
Social Work assessment process to the
resulting service provision
Data
37 case records concerning
income support where
eviction risk is in some way
evident, from four Swedish
municipalities with varied
population sizes and socio-
economic profiles
164 case files from teams
dealing with at-risk young
people aged 16–21; open
cases extracted by social
workers using a standard
data collection tool
Quantitative study
Resource Action Centre
(TRAC) in Texas and child
protection services
database; plus TRAC’s own
follow-up notes and self-
sufficiency matrix, used to
determine outcomes
All electronic and handwritten Qualitative/quantitative study
registers and social history
forms recorded between
January 2005 and April 2009
at the social services
department, and semi-
structured interviews with
ten social workers
Case records from Qualitative study
a community-funded
domestic violence
prevention project in
Hong Kong between
July 2011 and July 2014:
a total of 41 women
identified, of whom 12 gave
consent for their case
records to be reviewed
Adult safeguarding database Qualitative/quantitative study
including all data collected
by one English local
authority, plus semi-
structured interviews with
safeguarding managers
from adult social care and
health teams
Structured assessment and Quantitative study
service agreements
extracted from Birmingham
City Council´s CareFirst
information system
Method
Qualitative study
Discourse theory:
negotiations in texts
regarding clients explored;
texts analysed as discursive
field within an institutional
setting
Quantitative study
Measurement of ‘suicidal
ideation and behaviour’ and
correlations between this
and client risk factors
Causal comparative research
design, with data analysed
using descriptive, bivariate
and multivariate statistics
To determine outcomes,
uses both TRAC’s self-
sufficiency matrix
(education, employment,
employability, financial
literacy and shelter) and
case records
Content analysis (interviews)
and quantitative data
analysis (documentary data)
Retrospective analysis of
case records
Clinical data-mining and
thematic analysis
Statistical analysis of
information from adult
safeguarding database;
analysis of a sample of
recent safeguarding adult
assessment outcomes;
thematic content analysis of
interviews
Data analysis methods, pre-
processing scripts and
statistical tool used
(Continued)

Table 1. (Continued).
Author, year of
publication, journal Aim of study
8 Trainor 2015 Looks at safeguarding
Journal of Adult documentation in adult
Protection safeguarding files, with
a view to redesigning and
developing practice
9 Petersen and Parsell Explores links between older
2020 people’s homelessness and
British Journal of family relationships
Social Work
10 Fontaine et al. 2020 Investigates the process of
International adapting the Listening
Journal of Guide for use as qualitative
Qualitative data, including challenges,
Methods opportunities and
limitations perceived and
encountered
11 Matscheck and Piuva Asks what can be learned
2020 about conditions for
European Journal integrated care according to
of Social Work the degree of collaboration,
involvement of the
individual user, and
supporting structures
12 Ismail et al. 2017 Explores whether available
Journal of Social data can provide evidence of
Policy association between the
uptake of personal budgets
and safeguarding referrals
13 Skogens 2011 Investigates connections in
European Journal case files between clients’
of Social Work labour market status and
how their drinking problem
is handled
NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH
Data
50 service user files from one Qualitative/quantitative study
health and social care trust
area in the UK between
1 April 2010 and
31 March 2011, plus semi-
structured interviews
561 case records from agencies Qualitative study
in Australia working with
older people in housing
crisis
191 text-based entries from
a collaboration among social
service agencies serving
financially strained
immigrants: researchers
exported case notes from
January to March 2019 from
Zoho IDS.4, a shared
platform for the funder and
collaborating agencies
25 case files from a local
authority, including
coordinated individual
plans: seven local authorities
were contacted, and the one
close to Stockholm with the
greatest number of CIPs for
the target group during the
specified period was chosen
2209 individual referral records Quantitative study
from combined returns data
on the abuse of vulnerable
adults and adult social care;
plus separate individual-
level data from three
purposively selected
councils; plus interviews
Case files from social welfare
offices in nine municipalities
within the suburban area of
Stockholm County from
1999 to 2004, dealing with
social assistance granted to
single men with recurrent or
long-term contact; alcohol-
related notes were present
in 297 case files, and
a sample of 30 case files was
studied
7
Method
File review tool used:
personal characteristics,
nature of alleged abuse, and
decisions/outcomes
Quantitative data analysed
using SPSS; thematic
analysis used to interpret
qualitative information
Data-mining with data
abstraction tool that
researchers provided to
agencies, where tool
included demographic
details, critical housing
incident underpinning the
referral, brief housing
history, living circumstances,
and support intervention
provided
Qualitative analysis
Qualitative study
Listening Guide and clinical
data-mining methodologies
Qualitative study
Analysed with reference to
two existing models,
comparing each finding with
relevant elements of the
models
Quantitative, in-depth
analysis
Quantitative study
Protocol used to collect data
from case files: client’s
age, year of first contact with
social welfare office, ability
to support himself through
work, and notes on decisions
made and type of action
taken by social worker in
relation to client’s alcohol or
drug use
Category analysis
8 T. KUORIKOSKI

2013; Fyson 2015; Trainor 2015; Ismail et al. 2017). The data also included documents containing
statistical information that had been collected from client documents for monitoring purposes
(Fyson 2015; Scannapieco, Smith, and Blakeney-Strong 2016; Ismail et al. 2017). The sample sizes
varied from just over ten to more than 200,000 individuals. As might be expected, sample sizes were
smaller in qualitative studies (e.g. Skogens 2011; Fernqvist 2018; Choi and Chan 2020; Matscheck
and Piuva 2020) than in quantitative studies (e.g. Chotvijit, Thiarai, and Jarvis 2019). The time
frame for which the data was collected ranged between three months and seven years.

Aims and methods of the studies

A common theme of the studies was to produce knowledge and information for practice. The
studies roughly fell into two groups. The first group shared an interpretive approach. Their aim was
to identify explanations, causes or contexts for various factors and their influence on a particular
phenomenon (Skogens 2011; Hamilton et al. 2015; Scannapieco, Smith, and Blakeney-Strong 2016;
Ismail et al. 2017; Choi and Chan 2020; Petersen and Parsell 2020). The second group was oriented
towards practice research and development, offering suggestions for the improvement of current
practice (Fyson 2015; Papadakaki et al. 2013; Trainor 2015; Chotvijit, Thiarai, and Jarvis 2019;
Matscheck and Piuva 2020). Two of the 13 studies selected did not fall in either of these two groups.
One of these studies explored a new method and tested it on documentary data (Fontaine et al.
2020). The other was a discursive study examining the construction of clients’ income support case
records; the underlying idea was that documents are tools for the exercise of control and power
(Fernqvist 2018).
Thus, across all 13 studies, both qualitative (Fernqvist 2018; Choi and Chan 2020; Fontaine et al.
2020; Matscheck and Piuva; Petersen and Parsell 2020) and quantitative (Skogens 2011; Hamilton
et al. 2015; Scannapieco, Smith, and Blakeney-Strong 2016; Ismail et al. 2017; Chotvijit, Thiarai, and
Jarvis 2019) methods were used. There were also mixed methods studies (Fyson 2015; Trainor 2015;
Papadakaki et al. 2013). These studies used documents as supplementary quantitative data regard­
ing background information and sociodemographic details. In these studies, the primary qualitative
data was collected by interviewing. As methods of analysis, the qualitative studies used discourse
analysis (Fernqvist 2018), thematic analysis (Trainor 2015; Choi and Chan 2020) and qualitative
analysis (Petersen and Parsell 2020). The quantitative studies used a variety of statistical methods,
examining correlations (Hamilton et al. 2015), causalities (Scannapieco, Smith, and Blakeney-
Strong 2016), personal characteristics and frequency of phenomena (Trainor 2015; Papadakaki
et al. 2016), the continuity of stages in the client process (Chotvijit, Thiarai, and Jarvis 2019), and
categories (Skogens 2011). In-depth analysis (Ismail et al. 2017) and analysis using conceptual
models was also conducted (Matscheck and Piuva 2020).
The studies implemented non-random data selection (Scannapieco, Smith, and Blakeney-Strong
2016) or – as in most of the studies – selected data based on the occurrence in the documents of
certain phenomena, such as unemployment and substance abuse (Skogens 2011), suicide risk
(Hamilton et al. 2015), homelessness (Petersen and Parsell 2020) or violence (Choi and Chan
2020). In some studies, either the social workers or the researchers themselves used data-mining
and data collection tools to gather demographic details and other relevant information (Choi and
Chan 2020; Fontaine et al. 2020; Petersen and Parsell 2020).

Opportunities and challenges of documentation and research use

My analysis of the studies mainly identified challenges regarding documentation in general, which
also related to the challenges of research use. Opportunities were not identified to the same extent.
The documentation and assessment processes appeared to be complex (Chotvijit, Thiarai, and
Jarvis 2019), and several problems were linked to them. There were indications that documentation
was experienced as an obligation. For example, a new documentation policy seemed to be
 NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 9

implemented mainly because it had been ordered from higher up the hierarchy (Matscheck and
Piuva 2020). The documented texts were often unclear; for example, it was difficult to find the
context or participants in the documents (Fernqvist 2018; Matscheck and Piuva 2020). The reasons
identified for inadequate documentation were the provision of unsuitable tools such as inappropri­
ate templates (Fyson 2015; Scannapieco, Smith, and Blakeney-Strong 2016), a lack of time in the
face of increasing client numbers, and frustration with repetition in the documentation (Fyson
2015). This manifested in the use of journals instead of ready-made forms, and in incomplete
documentation processes that made it difficult to see how the process with a client had progressed
(Chotvijit, Thiarai, and Jarvis 2019; Matscheck and Piuva 2020). Incomplete, unsystematic doc­
umentation, variability in the use of EIS, constant changes in terminology, and differences in
practice were considered to have affected the quality and reliability of research data (Skogens
2011; Fyson 2015; Papadakaki et al. 2013; Scannapieco, Smith, and Blakeney-Strong 2016; Ismail
et al. 2017; Chotvijit, Thiarai, and Jarvis 2019).
The consequences of poor documentation were also discussed. Among other things, cooperation
and information exchange among actors was found to be difficult, which in turn might threaten
clients’ access to services. Challenges were also identified in the design of cost-effective services
(Chotvijit, Thiarai, and Jarvis 2019), and long-term goals and monitoring became difficult due to
poor documentation (Matscheck and Piuva 2020). Deficiencies in documentation had impacts on
resourcing. The growing workload could not be verified – if there was no recorded data, there could
be no additional resources (Fyson 2015). Other challenges were small sample sizes and the
production of data by a single individual which reduced generalizability (Trainor 2015; Ismail
et al. 2017; Chotvijit, Thiarai, and Jarvis 2019; Choi and Chan 2020; Matscheck and Piuva 2020).
Discretion, interpretation, and the situationality of documents were also mentioned as limiting
factors (Skogens 2011; Fernqvist 2018; Choi and Chan 2020; Fontaine et al. 2020; Petersen and
Parsell 2020). The exploration of client documents was also time-consuming (Matscheck and Piuva
2020).
One opportunity-related factor was that secondary use of materials could save the researcher
time and money (Fontaine et al. 2020). Client documents also enabled the exploration of sensitive
topics while maintaining privacy and offering objective descriptions (Choi and Chan 2020), as well
as granting access ‘below the surface’ (Fontaine et al. 2020). Negative features, such as the
appearance of shortcomings in the documentation, were also identified as opportunities insofar
as they allowed the problem in question to be addressed (Fyson 2015; Papadakaki et al. 2013). Here
it was considered important to reflect on the relevance of documentation and the development of
document templates. Researchers noted that improvements were needed to obtain accurate infor­
mation. New templates should be piloted before final deployment, ‘forced choices’ such as key
demographic data should be included, and the harmonization of terminology was necessary (Fyson
2015; Chotvijit, Thiarai, and Jarvis 2019). Changes in practices and habits were found to require
front-level authorization (Matscheck and Piuva 2020).

Discussion and conclusion

The findings reveal that adult social work documents are used as research data in various ways: as
background material, to explain particular phenomena and causalities, or for development pur­
poses. Qualitative and quantitative methods are used equally; mixed methods are also deployed.
However, my findings suggest that the varying quality of the documentation and other related
problems are obstacles to the exploitation of documents in practice, research and development.
Although the measurement of outcomes (Carrilio 2005, 2008) and its connection to documentation
has long been discussed, there are still major problems in the production of information for these
purposes. It seems that EIS are unable to fulfil their own informational mission with regard to social
work as it has been noted also in previous studies (Shaw et al. 2009; Björngren Cuadra 2019). Not
only in order to measure outcomes, but also to highlight challenges and correct problems in
10 T. KUORIKOSKI

documentation, the use of documents as research data should be both continued and expanded.
Studies that use documents as data are often oriented towards interventions and results. The
potential to deepen the use of documents as data could be further exploited to identify how and
why certain outcomes occur in particular contexts, as Blom and Morén (2015) suggest.
My findings show that working conditions affect the quality of documentation. Poor documen­
tation and its practices were addressed in more than half the studies I analysed. If adult social work
were viewed solely in the light of client documents, it would appear rather unsystematic and
unplanned. This is obviously not the whole truth. As is known, workloads are huge, and there is
limited time for documentation (Shaw et al. 2009; Gillingham 2011; McDonald et al. 2015; Lauri
2016; Lillis 2017). Lack of time and unsuitable tools may lead to incorrect recording, as may lack of
knowledge and even deliberate resistance.
Conducting social work in the field under challenging circumstances has adverse consequences.
It is often said that what is not recorded has not happened. In that regard, imbalances in resources
or work allocations are linked to documentation, as my findings demonstrate (Fyson 2015). Missing
or incomplete documents do not give the whole picture of the work done, and this in turn provides
managers with insufficient evidence of the need for additional resources or amended working
arrangements. The result is a vicious circle. The poor state of documentation may reflect a larger
picture of the challenges in social work practice. Gradually, poor working conditions come to be
perceived as necessary evils about which nothing can be done, and this is again reflected in the
shortcomings of documentation. Indifferent attitudes emerge, and sometimes changing one’s job
appears to be the only way out. As is known, the turnover of employees in the field of social work is
high (e.g. Yliruka et al. 2020). Because of the constant churn, views and visions of the work may
narrow; for example, the importance of documentation, and the employee’s own role in it, may not
be recognized in terms of benefits.
The benefits of documentation have been presented in previous studies from the perspectives of
clients, employees and the wider context (Thompson 2002; Reamer 2005; Alexanderson 2006;
Carrilio 2005, 2008; McDonald et al. 2015; Lillis 2017). Building a common understanding of
these benefits would help to get to grips with the many levels of documentation. This would require
shared willingness and discussion to improve documentation practices. Commitment and involve­
ment at the management level are a crucial part of this. In addition, grassroots involvement in
planning to make changes to recording practices and EIS should be taken into account, and care
should be taken to implement each change properly before making the next. Consistency of
documentation would enable the automatic extraction of statistical and register information at
the national level, which is important to defend and develop social work in a way that recognizes
clients’ needs and makes social work visible. This could be achieved by (among other things)
improving working conditions, and by assessing resources and working methods in a way that
makes systematic documentation and client participation in documentation possible. This in turn
would strengthen the legal framework from a client perspective, offer a structured process, and
provide better opportunities for the secondary use of documents and the construction of more
reliable data. Investment in documentation might open the door – or the black box, as Blom and
Morén (2015) put it – to more in-depth research that uses documents as data, answering questions
about how and why changes have taken place, and discovering not only the results but also the
context of specific interventions.

Limitations
The complexity of the terminology meant that searches based on it left room for interpretation. In
particular, the term ‘social work with adults’ was difficult to define and grasp in an international
context. The inclusion criterion in the study was to limit the concept of social work with adults to
the Finnish context. As a result, only a small percentage of the search results met the criteria. If the
study had been conducted in the context of another country, the results would probably have been
 NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 11

different. It should also be noted that the review was conducted by a single individual. This limited
the scope and selection of the articles. While this limitation was accepted for practical reasons, it is
worth pointing out that potentially relevant papers may have been missed, and a different
researcher might have made different choices.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health [Funder’s project number: VN/25322/2020].

ORCID
Tuija Kuorikoski http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8279-5748

References
Adams, R., L. Dominelli, M. Payne 2002. Social Work: Themes, Issues and Critical Debates. 2nd. R. Adams, L.
Dominelli & M. Payne Basingstoke: Palgrave in association with The Open University.
Alexanderson, K. 2006. Vilja, Kunna, Förstå: Om Implementering Av Systematisk Dokumentation För
Verksamhetsutveckling I Socialtjänsten [Willingness, Comprehension, Capability: About Implementation of
Systematic Documentation for Developing Social Work in the Public Social Work Services]. Örebro: University
Library.
Alexanderson, K., E. Beijer, S. Bengtsson, U. Hyvönen, P.-Å. Karlsson, and M. Nyman. 2009. “Producing and
Consuming Knowledge in Social Work Practice: Research and Development Activities in a Swedish Context.”
Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 5 (2): 127–139. doi:10.1332/174426409X437883.
Arksey, H., and L. O’Malley. 2005. “Scoping Studies: Towards a Methodological Framework.” International Journal of
Social Research Methodology 8 (1): 19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616.
Askeland, G. A., and M. Payne. 1999. “Authors and Audiences: Towards a Sociology of Case Recording.” European
Journal of Social Work 2 (1): 55–65. doi:10.1080/13691459908413805.
Baginsky, M., J. Manthorpe, and J. Moriarty. 2020. “The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and
Their Families and Signs of Safety: Competing or Complementary Frameworks?” British Journal of Social Work.
doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcaa058.
Björngren Cuadra, C. (2019 14 March 2019). “Technology-dependent Documentation and Social Redundancy: A
scenario-based Analysis of an IT Failure in the Social Services.” Paper presented at Nordic Welfare Research
Conference: Towards Resilient Nordic Welfare States, Helsinki, Finland
Blom, B., and S. Morén. 2007. Insatser Och Resultat I Socialt Arbete [Interventions and Results in Social Work]. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Blom, B., and S. Morén. 2015. Teori för socialt arbete. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Bowen, G. A. 2009. “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.” Qualitative Research Journal 9 (2):
27–40. doi:10.3316/QRJ0902027.
Bradt, L., R. Roose, M. Bie, and M. De Schryver. 2011. “Data Recording and Social Work: From the Relational to the
Social.” British Journal of Social Work 41 (7): 1372–1382. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr131.
Carrilio, T. 2005. “Management Information Systems: Why are They Underutilized in the Social Services?”
Administration in Social Work 29 (2): 43–61. doi:10.1300/J147v29n02_04.
Carrilio, T. E. 2008. “Accountability, Evidence, and the Use of Information Systems in Social Service Programs.”
Journal of Social Work 8 (2): 135–148. doi:10.1177/1468017307088495.
Cheng, S. M., and C. Catallo. 2020. “Conceptual Framework: Factors Enabling Collaborative Healthcare and Social
Services Integration.” Journal of Integrated Care 28 (3): 215–229. doi:10.1108/JICA-11-2019-0048.
Chester, H., J. Hughes, I. Bowns, M. Abendstern, S. Davies, and D. Challis. 2021. “Electronic Information Sharing
between Nursing and Adult Social Care Practitioners in Separate Locations: A mixed-methods Case Study.”
Journal of Long-Term Care 2021: 1–11. doi:10.31389/jltc.16.
Choi, A. W. M., and P. Y. Chan. 2020. “Women’s Use of Force: Hostility Intertwines in Chinese Family Context.”
Qualitative Social Work: QSW: Research and Practice 19 (2): 192–212. doi:10.1177/1473325018805529.
12 T. KUORIKOSKI

Chotvijit, S., M. Thiarai, and S. A. Jarvis. 2019. “A Study of Data Continuity in Adult Social Care Services.” The British
Journal of Social Work 49 (3): 762–786. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcy083.
Coffey, A. 2014. “Analysing Documents.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, edited by U. Flick,
367–379. Los Angeles: SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781446282243.n25.
Colquhoun, H., D. Levac, K. O’Brien, S. Straus, A. Tricco, L. Perrier, M. Kastner, and D. Moher. 2014. “Scoping
Reviews: Time for Clarity in Definition, Methods, and Reporting.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67. doi:10.
1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013.
Denscombe, M. 2010. The Good Research Guide: For small-scale Social Research Projects. 4th ed. Buckingham:
McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Fernqvist, S. 2018. “‘One Does One’s Best’: Performing Deservingness in Income Support Case Records.” Critical and
Radical Social Work 6 (3): 329–343. doi:10.1332/204986018X15321001889969.
Floersch, J. 2000. “Reading the Case Record: The Oral and Written Narratives of Social Workers.” Social Service
Review 74 (2): 169–192. doi:10.1086/514475.
Fontaine, C. M., A. C. Baker, T. H. Zaghloul, and M. Carlson. 2020. “Clinical Data Mining with the Listening Guide:
An Approach to Narrative Big Qual.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19: 160940692095174. doi:10.
1177/1609406920951746.
Fook, J. 2016. Social Work: A Critical Approach to Practice. 3rd ed. London: SAGE.
Fyson, R. 2015. “Building an Evidence Base for Adult Safeguarding? Problems with the Reliability and Validity of
Adult Safeguarding Databases.” The British Journal of Social Work 45 (3): 932–948. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct163.
Gillingham, P. 2011. “Computer-based Information Systems and Human Service Organisations: Emerging Problems
and Future Possibilities.” Australian Social Work 64 (3): 299–312. doi:10.1080/0312407X.2010.524705.
Gillingham, P. 2021. “Practitioner Perspectives on the Implementation of an Electronic Information System to
Enforce Practice Standards in England.” European Journal of Social Work 24 (5): 761–771. doi:10.1080/13691457.
2020.1870213.
Hamilton, D. J., B. J. Taylor, C. Killick, and D. Bickerstaff. 2015. “Suicidal Ideation and Behaviour among Young
People Leaving Care: Case-file Survey.” Child Care in Practice: Northern Ireland Journal of multi-disciplinary Child
Care Practice 21 (2): 160–176. doi:10.1080/13575279.2014.994475.
Hansen, H. C., and S. Natland. 2017. “The Working Relationship between Social Worker and Service User in an
Activation Policy Context.” Nordic Social Work Research 7 (2): 101–114. doi:10.1080/2156857X.2016.1221850.
Hoyle, V., E. Shepherd, A. Flinn, and E. Lomas. 2019. “Child social-care Recording and the Information Rights of
care-experienced People: A Recordkeeping Perspective.” British Journal of Social Work 49 (7): 1856–1874. doi:10.
1093/bjsw/bcy115.
Hujala, A., and J. Lammintakanen. 2018. Paljon sote-palveluja tarvitsevat ihmiset keskiöön [People in need of multiple
social and health services at the centre]. Helsinki: KAKS-Kunnallisalan kehittämissäätiö 2018.
Ismail, M., S. Hussein, M. Stevens, J. Woolham, J. Manthorpe, F. Aspinal, K. Samsi, and K. SAMSI. 2017. “Do
Personal Budgets Increase the Risk of Abuse? Evidence from English National Data.” Journal of Social Policy
46 (2): 291–311. doi:10.1017/S0047279416000623.
Jacobsson, K., and E. Martinell Barfoed (2019). “Socialt Arbete Och Pappersgöra: Mellan Klient Och Digitala
Document [Social Work and Paperwork: Between Client and Digital Documents]”. Gleerups Utbildning. http://
lup.lub.lu.se/record/c3907961-c03b-4d58-8210-8923a1c71e16
Juhila, K. 2008. “Aikuisten parissa tehtävän sosiaalityön areenat [Arenas for social work with adults.” In Sosiaalityö
aikuisten parissa [Social work with adults], edited by A. Jokinen and K. Juhila, 14–47, Tampere: Vastapaino.
Kääriäinen, A. 2003. Lastensuojelun Sosiaalityö Asiakirjoina: Dokumentoinnin Ja Tiedonmuodostuksen Dynamiikka
[Social Work in Child Welfare as Documents: Dynamics of Documentation and Generation of Information].
Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Karjalainen, P. 2017. “Aikuissosiaalityö [Social Work with Adults.” In Sosiaalityön käsikirja [Handbook of social
work]. 4thed., edited by A. Kananoja, M. Lähteinen, P. Marjamäki, and K. Aho, 247–259. Helsinki: Tietosanoma.
Karjalainen, P., A. Metteri, and M. Strömberg-Jakka. 2019. “Tiekartta 2030: Aikuisten parissa tehtävän sosiaalityön
tulevaisuusselvitys [Road map 2030: Prospective study of social work with adults].” Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja
terveysministeriö.
Kivipelto, M., S. Blomgren, P. Saikkonen, and P. Karjalainen. 2015. “Web-based Tool for Social Work Effectiveness
Evaluation.” Revista de Asistenta Sociala 3: 19.
Laaksonen, M., A. Kääriäinen, M. Penttilä, M. Tapola-Haapala, H. Sahala, J. Kärki, and A. Jäppinen. 2011.
Asiakastyön Dokumentointi Sosiaalihuollossa: Opastusta Asiakastiedon Käyttöön Ja Kirjaamiseen
[Documentation of Client Work in Social Welfare: Guidance for Writing and Use of Information]. Helsinki:
Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare.
Laird, S. E., K. Morris, P. Archard, and R. Clawson. 2017. “Working with the Whole Family: What Case Files Tell Us
about Social Work Practices.” Child & Family Social Work 22 (3): 1322–1329. doi:10.1111/cfs.12349.
Lauri, M. (2016). Narratives of governing: Rationalization, responsibility and resistance in social work. PhD thesis,
Umeå University.
 NORDIC SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH 13

Lillis, T. 2017. “Imagined, Prescribed and Actual Text Trajectories: The ‘Problem’ with Case Notes in Contemporary
Social Work.” Text & Talk 37. doi:10.1515/text-2017-0013.
Liukko, E. 2006. Kuntouttavaa sosiaalityötä paikantamassa. Helsinki: SOCCA: Heikki Waris -instituutti.
Lymbery, M. 2012. “Social Work and Personalisation.” British Journal of Social Work 42 (4): 783–792. doi:10.1093/
bjsw/bcs027.
Lymbery, M., and K. Postle. 2010. “Social Work in the Context of Adult Social Care in England and the Resultant
Implications for Social Work Education.” British Journal of Social Work 40 (8): 2502–2522. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq045.
Malbon, E., G. Carey, and A. Meltzer. 2019. “Personalisation Schemes in Social Care: Are They Growing Social and
Health Inequalities?” BMC Public Health 19 (1): 805. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7168-4.
Matscheck, D., and K. Piuva. 2020. “Integrated care for individuals with mental illness and substance abuse - the
example of the coordinated individual plan in Sweden: Integrerad vård för personer med psykisk ohälsa eller
missbruk - exemplet Samordnade Individuella Planer i Sverige.”European Journal of Social Work ahead-of-print
(ahead-of-print). 1–14. 10.1080/13691457.2020.1843409.
McCulloch, G. 2004. Documentary Research in Education, History, and the Social Sciences. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
McDonald, D., J. Boddy, K. O’Callaghan, and P. Chester. 2015. “Ethical Professional Writing in Social Work and
Human Services.” Ethics and Social Welfare 9 (4): 1–16. doi:10.1080/17496535.2015.1009481.
Murray, G. F., H. P. Rodriguez, and V. A. Lewis. 2020. “Upstream with a Small Paddle: How ACOs are Working against
the Current to Meet Patients’ Social Needs.” Health Affairs 39 (2): 199–206. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01266.
Papadakaki, M., E. Kastrinaki, R. Drakaki, and J. Chliaoutakis. 2013. “Managing Intimate Partner Violence at the
Social Services Department of a Greek University Hospital.” Journal of Social Work: JSW 13 (5): 533–549. doi:10.
1177/1468017311435445.
Petersen, M., and C. Parsell. 2020. “The Family Relationships of Older Australians at Risk of Homelessness.” The
British Journal of Social Work 50 (5): 1440–1456. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcaa007.
Phillips, C. R. 2019. “The Computer Social Worker: Regulatory Practices, Regulated Bodies and Science.” Qualitative
Social Work 18 (3): 443–457. doi:10.1177/1473325017723700.
Prior, L. 2003. Using Documents in Social Research. London: SAGE.
Prior, L. 2007. Documents. Qualitative Research Practice (Concise pbk. ed.), edited by Seale C. London: SAGE.
Reamer, F. 2005. “Documentation in Social Work: Evolving Ethical and risk-management Standards.” Social Work
50 (4): 325–334. doi:10.1093/sw/50.4.325.
Scannapieco, M., M. Smith, and A. Blakeney-Strong. 2016. “Transition from Foster Care to Independent Living:
Ecological Predictors Associated with Outcomes.” Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal 33 (4): 293–302. doi:10.
1007/s10560-015-0426-0.
Scott, J. 1990. A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Shaw, I., M. Bell, I. Sinclair, P. Sloper, W. Mitchell, P. Dyson, J. Clayden, and J. Rafferty. 2009. “An Exemplary
Scheme? an Evaluation of the Integrated Children’s System.” British Journal of Social Work 39 (4): 613–626. doi:10.
1093/bjsw/bcp040.
Skogens, L. 2011. “Labour Market Status, Requirements and Social support-single Male Clients with Problematic
Alcohol Consumption.” European Journal of Social Work 14 (4): 513–523. doi:10.1080/13691457.2010.516497.
Storey, J. E., and M. R. Perka. 2018. “Reaching Out for Help: Recommendations for Practice Based on an in-depth
Analysis of an Elder Abuse Intervention Programme.” British Journal of Social Work 48 (4): 1052–1070. doi:10.
1093/bjsw/bcy039.
Thompson, N. 2002. Social Work with Adults. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave.
Trainor, P. 2015. “A Review of Factors Which Potentially Influence Decisions in Adult Safeguarding Investigations.”
The Journal of Adult Protection 17 (1): 51–61. doi:10.1108/JAP-03-2014-0008.
van Berkel, R., W. de Graaf, T. Sirovátka, and R. van Berkel. 2012. “Governance of the Activation Policies in Europe:
Introduction.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 32 (5–6): 260–272. doi:10.1108/
01443331211236943.
Vierula, T. 2017. Lastensuojelun Asiakirjat Vanhempien Näkökulmasta [Child Protection Documents from a Parental
Perspective]. Tampere: Tampere University Press.
Vojak, C. 2009. “Choosing Language: Social Service Framing and Social Justice.” British Journal of Social Work 39 (5):
936–949. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcm144.
Yliruka, L., P. Petrelius, S. Alho, A. Jaakola, H. Lunabba, S. Remes, S. Keränen, S. Teiro, and A. Terämä (2020).
Osaaminen Lastensuojelun Sosiaalityössä. Esitys Asiantuntijuutta Tukevasta Urapolkumallista. [Competence in
Child Welfare Social Work: A Presentation of Career Path Model Supporting Expertise].Työpaperi 36.Terveyden
Ja Hyvinvoinnin Laitos. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-343-571-1
Ylönen, K. 2022. “The Use of Electronic Information Systems in Social work.A Scoping Review of the Empirical
Articles Published between 2000 and 2019.” European Journal ofSocial Work, Act on Social Welfare Client
Documents. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2015/20150254.